DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Paramount Home Entertainment sends over artwork for the films 1-disc release

Further Details:
Paramount Home Entertainment has announced 1-disc DVD ($29.99) and 2-disc DVD ($39.99) releases of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button for the 5th May. As far as we know, no extra material will be included on the 1-disc DVD. The 2-disc DVD and Blu-ray releases will include commentary by director David Fincher, and a 4-part The Curious Birth of Benjamin Button documentary which covers the casting of Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett, the decision to change the location of the story to New Orleans, costumes, visual effects, and more. We've attached our first look at the official package artwork below:

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

Idioteque... wrote: Am I the only one that believes there will be a double dip? Oh absolutely! Especially since there are none of the many deleted scenes on either release I smell a director's cut in the future.

Odd that they mention the 3 Academy Awards on the cover considering they were in such minor categories as Art Direction, Makeup and Visual Effects. So glad this didn't beat Slumdog Millionaire, I love Fincher as much as anyone but this was Forrest Gump 2, hard to believe it's a Criterion title.

a.c.norca wrote: I find it weird that Criterion is releasing this and yet, there's no news of it whatsoever on their website (which announces all their releases until june)

Either Criterion is slow to update or it must be the deal Criterion and Paramount made when they made the deal to co-distribute "Button" on home video. If you look on an online shop that has the preorders for both editions of "Button," both the 2-disc Criterion and Blu-ray have the similar Paramount UPC code as opposed to Criterion's UPC code.

My guess is that Paramount agreed with Criterion to make the 2-disc DVD and Blu-ray, but with the stipulation that it use the same UPC code style Paramount does (and not have it for preorder in Criterion's online store). I don't know the specifics of it, just speculating out of curiosity.

mc_serenity wrote: A lot of Fincher's movies have received Criterion-worthy extras from their respective studios. Se7en (NL 2-disc Platinum Series), FC (Fox's 3-disc edition), Zodiac (Paramount's 2-disc edition), Panic Room (Sony's 3-disc edition). The only other Fincher film I see getting a Criterion release would be "The Game."

The Game and Se7en were both released by Criterion on LaserDisc in the 90s. Many films they released on LaserDisc they sadly no longer have the rights to (since all the major studios realised the potential of special editions, and started doing their own).

Well I mean Se7en is brilliant but yet it's a f*cking depressing movie. I wouldn't want to watch it to many times, despite its sheer brilliance, same thing with Requiem for a Dream. You wanna spaced out between each viewings. Zodiac is only out on home video for like a year. Fight Club is fantastic too to say the least. Anyway, I'm just rambling on over nothing lol.

I enjoyed the movie. It does rate low in Fincher's filmography, but I will still pick up the Criterion release sometime.

While quite a few people say that Fincher's best is Zodiac or Seven, I still feel that Fight Club is the most enjoyable of his movies. I watched Fight Club more number of times than I watched Zodiac and Seven put together... in fact, more than all his other movies put together!

mc_serenity wrote: But Michael Bay, a visionary director? Excuse while I clean up water from my computer monitor from laughing so hard.Not what I said. I said he was a singular cinematic vision. Like him or hate him, I know when I'm watching a Michael Bay film. Who he is defines the films he makes, and his bombastic, hyperactive, gloss-dripping-off-the-screen style is unique to his own indulgent brand of moviemaking. You may think it's c**p, but it's c**p with his fingerprints on every blown-out, oversaturated frame.

I loved this film as well and I am surprised to see that it is also getting a criterion release! I actually love the artwork for both and I'm assuming that the 2-disc blu-ray art (the edition I will be buying) will be similar to the criterion.

Jesus christ there's a lot of b***hing going around here. The movie was far from perfect, but it was damn entertaining to see Button's progression through life.

And as for the Criterion issue everyone seems to have, are you kidding me? "Why is this movie getting the Criterion treatment? THIS movie should get it!" How about we all just agree Criterion does an awesome job all the time, and every move should be done my them? I mean s**t, I'm sure there are people that hate some of the flicks they've put out besides this, the Wes Andersons and Bays. So why all the hostility? Grow up.

A lot of Fincher's movies have received Criterion-worthy extras from their respective studios. Se7en (NL 2-disc Platinum Series), FC (Fox's 3-disc edition), Zodiac (Paramount's 2-disc edition), Panic Room (Sony's 3-disc edition). The only other Fincher film I see getting a Criterion release would be "The Game."

But Michael Bay, a visionary director? Excuse while I clean up water from my computer monitor from laughing so hard. "Benjamin Button" may not be an instant classic, but it's leagues better than Bay's puketastic "Armageddon" and "The Rock" Criterion releases.

Sometimes Criterion's gotta pay the bills, and owning a stake in a 2-disc DVD that will sell like Benjamin Button is what you gotta do. I dunno what kind of defense could be made for the so-so film, other than the groundbreaking effects, but there's no arguing that Michael Bay and David Fincher are singular cinematic voices, and that Armageddon is a pop-cultural landmark. These are probably the reasons why Criterion is doing the release.

GRJR721 wrote: The lesson here is never to aim to make a great movie before locking in the framework for a good one. To aim for greatness otherwise invites all kinds of risks - the possibility of reaching high and crashing, of mistaking the somber for the serious, of creating the form of greatness without the content. In short, there's the danger of making something as pretty and vacant as "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button."

Visually, the film, from director David Fincher, is flawless. The story begins in 1918 and extends into present day, and, at every point, the art direction and clothing meticulously re-create the respective eras. The digital cinematography subtly evokes earlier photography. The stars are major and Oscar ready. In every way, the movie looks like somebody's idea of a great movie, just as its length - 167 minutes - proclaims its importance. But the proclamation is untrue, and all the trappings are in the service of a story that's emotionally false and fundamentally unimportant.

I mostly agree. This is a fantastic techinical achievenment, and there are moments of magic, but overall, it left me a bit cold.

I actually like the 2-disc art better; well, at least the picture. I don't like that the 2-disc has more "Criterion Collection" stamped on it than it does the film's title. Especially on the front, that's just odd, and looks like it ought to be a sticker that you peel off.

god this was a good movie. granted, you have to be in the mood to sit through 3 hours of a movie, but it's one of those movies that you don't want it to end. Brad Pitt's such a big tabloid celebrity that you forget that he's such a good actor.

i'm a little disappointed that it didn't win most of the Oscars it was nominated for, but i think Slumdog deserved them a little more (that movie's fantastic too)

This movie was very overrated. It was an enjoyable experience, but if you already see it once, it's not as enticing and it just becomes boring because you already know everything about Button's life story. I'm not saying the film is terrible, it's just overrated. The 1-disc artwork is okay but if they stuck with just the two floating heads and the title.

B B wrote: so the 1-disc will be from Paramount and the 2-disc DVD and Blu-Ray will be from Paramount/Criterion? do I have this right?

Yes. The Criterion edition will also include the same audio and subtitle options (English, Quebecois-French and Latin Spanish) as the Paramount-distributed single-disc edition. Unless the press release misworded it, of course.

Vipper wrote: Aside from perhaps Michael Bay, I'm not sure many people felt Armageddon or The Rock were classic/important.

Simple. They are examples of big-budget, popcorn-munching, Hollywood blockbuster entertainment. This has been mentioned before. Also, to a lesser extent, I guess because Michael Bay films have a certain look.

GRJR721 wrote: The lesson here is never to aim to make a great movie before locking in the framework for a good one. To aim for greatness otherwise invites all kinds of risks - the possibility of reaching high and crashing, of mistaking the somber for the serious, of creating the form of greatness without the content. In short, there's the danger of making something as pretty and vacant as "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button."

Visually, the film, from director David Fincher, is flawless. The story begins in 1918 and extends into present day, and, at every point, the art direction and clothing meticulously re-create the respective eras. The digital cinematography subtly evokes earlier photography. The stars are major and Oscar ready. In every way, the movie looks like somebody's idea of a great movie, just as its length - 167 minutes - proclaims its importance. But the proclamation is untrue, and all the trappings are in the service of a story that's emotionally false and fundamentally unimportant.

I hope your name is Mick LaSalle, because if it's not you're a plagiarist.

so the 1-disc will be from Paramount and the 2-disc DVD and Blu-Ray will be from Paramount/Criterion? do I have this right?

Vipper wrote: roadogg31 wrote: I thought they only bought the rights to classic and important films? While this movie was good, it was neither classic nor important.

Aside from perhaps Michael Bay, I'm not sure many people felt Armageddon or The Rock were classic/important. And, while they were good, The Royal Tenenbaums and Rushmore hardly classified as important. Yet, they've all got the Criterion stamp.

as far as I'm concerned it's whatever movies they want to release in their own Criterion catalogue. If a movie has a Criterion stamp most people I know would generally think that they will be getting a quality movie. They represent fine cinema imo, but ultimately it is up to them what films they want to give a spine number to. Yes, some odd choices are in in their catalogue for sure (The Rock, Armageddon). Yet I enjoyed those movies, so I don't have any problems with them being selected. I guess it boils down to the buyer and if he/she enjoyed the movie that determines and earned spine number and Criterion stamp.

I can't help but think of the Assasination of Jesse James cover when I see this one, minus some facial hair of course.

I really enjoyed Benjamin Button. I agree with mc_serenity feeling a sense of magic watching it, reminiscent of a film Spielberg might make. I'm not ashamed to admit I welled up on occasion during it. I will definitely get this at some point.

Does anyone expect a Zodiac like double dip with this? From the looks of the features I don't think so myself.

Very overrated movie. The first 45 minutes and the last 45 minutes are the best parts of the movie. The middle portion, boring. Sadly, I'll have to own this one day when I start collecting every Criterion DVD.

slapshot63 wrote: I must be one of the few people who absolutely loved this movie. Huh.

You're not the only one. It does require time and patience to sit through, but I thought Fincher really imbued this movie with a sense of magic. His previous works were good (I think "Fight Club" is a tremendously overrated piece of s**t though), but I really enjoyed this one.

I was absolutely floored that Criterion is releasing a 2-disc edition -- I was initially considering buying the single-disc edition if it was a regular Paramount/Warners/Fox "more money" tactic. The 2-disc edition is so mine come May 5th.

I'm definitely in the "overrated" camp on this one ... I was bored through most of it. The art is "eh" ... you'd think they could have come up with something more creative for the original poster art that inspired it.

Vipper wrote: roadogg31 wrote: I thought they only bought the rights to classic and important films? While this movie was good, it was neither classic nor important.

Aside from perhaps Michael Bay, I'm not sure many people felt Armageddon or The Rock were classic/important. And, while they were good, The Royal Tenenbaums and Rushmore hardly classified as important. Yet, they've all got the Criterion stamp.

Good point. I would then have to say that I have no idea what the criteria are for the Criterion Collection. That, or CC dropped the ball on these films. I disagree with your assessment on Rushmore though. I thought that was pretty important for who is turning out to be an important director. Maybe CC had the same rationale with David Fincher, but Zodiac as an entire film was better and much stronger than Benjamin Button.

GRJR721 wrote: The lesson here is never to aim to make a great movie before locking in the framework for a good one. To aim for greatness otherwise invites all kinds of risks - the possibility of reaching high and crashing, of mistaking the somber for the serious, of creating the form of greatness without the content. In short, there's the danger of making something as pretty and vacant as "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button."

Visually, the film, from director David Fincher, is flawless. The story begins in 1918 and extends into present day, and, at every point, the art direction and clothing meticulously re-create the respective eras. The digital cinematography subtly evokes earlier photography. The stars are major and Oscar ready. In every way, the movie looks like somebody's idea of a great movie, just as its length - 167 minutes - proclaims its importance. But the proclamation is untrue, and all the trappings are in the service of a story that's emotionally false and fundamentally unimportant.

The lesson here is never to aim to make a great movie before locking in the framework for a good one. To aim for greatness otherwise invites all kinds of risks - the possibility of reaching high and crashing, of mistaking the somber for the serious, of creating the form of greatness without the content. In short, there's the danger of making something as pretty and vacant as "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button."

Visually, the film, from director David Fincher, is flawless. The story begins in 1918 and extends into present day, and, at every point, the art direction and clothing meticulously re-create the respective eras. The digital cinematography subtly evokes earlier photography. The stars are major and Oscar ready. In every way, the movie looks like somebody's idea of a great movie, just as its length - 167 minutes - proclaims its importance. But the proclamation is untrue, and all the trappings are in the service of a story that's emotionally false and fundamentally unimportant.

I think that "Zodiac" didn't get nominated for anything because the Academy was saving it all for Benjamin Button, which turned out to be true, seeing the film getting like 13 nominations. Sadly, BB didn't turn out to be good as people thought it would be. "Zodiac" was the better film and is still, by far, David Fincher's best film to date. It's sad it didn't get a nomination.

Very excited about this release. Fincher has gone two years in a row getting shafted (with Zodiac receiving ZERO Oscar nominations, and Benjamin Button not receiving the wins it deserved). Glad to see Criterion has some sense.

roadogg31 wrote: I thought they only bought the rights to classic and important films? While this movie was good, it was neither classic nor important.

Aside from perhaps Michael Bay, I'm not sure many people felt Armageddon or The Rock were classic/important. And, while they were good, The Royal Tenenbaums and Rushmore hardly classified as important. Yet, they've all got the Criterion stamp.